What should a license test for ham radio demand knowledge of anyway?
 

So what should a candidate know to get a beginner, and upper level license?

As we are allowed to modify and homebrew equipment, we should have on
the tests questions on how such equipment works, and how to identify problem
areas like RFI, TVI, harmonic emissions and such.

Also RF safety issues, as we are allowed kilowatt levels of power.

electrical safety techniques, as much equipment use hazardous voltages
(also we should know not to wear wedding rings and such near car
batteries, a short thru a ring can burn a finger off).

Rules and regs. Like no business traffic. What constitutes malicious
interference and what is just normal life on the HF bands when conditions
are crowded.

Some knowledge of modes and bandwidth, especially why you don't
want to set your rig on 14.349 in USB mode.

Basically, we should know how not to trash the RF spectrum and
screw up other users.

What else should be here?

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

So what should a candidate know to get a beginner, and upper level license?

As we are allowed to modify and homebrew equipment, we should have on
the tests questions on how such equipment works, and how to identify problem
areas like RFI, TVI, harmonic emissions and such.

Agreed. But how much is needed is the tough question. How much is enough?

Also RF safety issues, as we are allowed kilowatt levels of power.

Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.

electrical safety techniques, as much equipment use hazardous voltages
(also we should know not to wear wedding rings and such near car
batteries, a short thru a ring can burn a finger off).

Is the purpose of the safety questions to protect a ham from himself, or to
protect those around him?

Rules and regs. Like no business traffic. What constitutes malicious
interference and what is just normal life on the HF bands when conditions
are crowded.

Some knowledge of modes and bandwidth, especially why you don't
want to set your rig on 14.349 in USB mode.

Basically, we should know how not to trash the RF spectrum and
screw up other users.

Agreed.

What else should be here?

- Basic knowledge and skills for the basic level, more advanced stuff for the
higher license levels.

- Operating skills and practices

- Morse code tests

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Robert Casey
writes:


So what should a candidate know to get a beginner, and upper level license?

As we are allowed to modify and homebrew equipment, we should have on
the tests questions on how such equipment works, and how to identify problem
areas like RFI, TVI, harmonic emissions and such.


Agreed. But how much is needed is the tough question. How much is enough?

I think that "enough" is testing that will allow the prospective ham to
get enough knowledge to know where to start to get a station on the air.

And here is the conundrum IMO. We are now considering allowing hf
access to a batch of new amateurs. At the same time, we are talking
about s significant (IMO) reduction in the qualifications for that
access. So unless the General test element meant and means absolutely
*nothing*, we are going to launch a lot of people onto HF with even less
qualifications than we have now.


Is this doing them a service? That's what I wonder about. I doubt many
people would argue for turning out more Electrical engineers by
drastically reducing the requirements to be one. Yes I know that an
engineer is a professional, but my point stands. How does lowering
requirements improve something?



Also RF safety issues, as we are allowed kilowatt levels of power.


Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.

If we don't test for safety, I would support a reduced power of 5 watts.
QRP level. I've done arm to myself at 50 watts, and



electrical safety techniques, as much equipment use hazardous voltages
(also we should know not to wear wedding rings and such near car
batteries, a short thru a ring can burn a finger off).


Is the purpose of the safety questions to protect a ham from himself, or to
protect those around him?

The answer is yes.



Rules and regs. Like no business traffic. What constitutes malicious
interference and what is just normal life on the HF bands when conditions
are crowded.

Some knowledge of modes and bandwidth, especially why you don't
want to set your rig on 14.349 in USB mode.

Basically, we should know how not to trash the RF spectrum and
screw up other users.


Agreed.


What else should be here?


- Basic knowledge and skills for the basic level, more advanced stuff for the
higher license levels.

- Operating skills and practices

- Morse code tests

Oh-oh! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

What else should be here?



- Basic knowledge and skills for the basic level, more advanced stuff for the
higher license levels.

- Operating skills and practices

This would be an extension of distingushing between malacious
interefernce and
the "facts of life" on HF ham bands (that nobody has exclusive rights to
a specific
frequency and that both parties involved in QRM move away (up or down) in
frequency to clear each other. And that some bands have unexpected patterns
of propagation (like 10m has the usual circle of nearby coverage, then a
ring of
no coverage, and another ring of "skip". And thus you can QRM the reception
of a ham in the skip zone trying to copy someone you can't hear. So you
would
then understand why someone seems to be talking to himself.).

Also some basic knowledge of the "syntax" of a QSO. XX#XXX, this is WA2ISE.


- Morse code tests

Why this today? Back in the vacuum tube era, morse code (CW)
transmitters and
receivers were simple but required human encode and decode. Today we have
digital technology and such for automated encode and decode of modes
more robust
than old fashined CW. Morse can be a fun mode for those interested,
but should
it be required?

And here is the conundrum IMO. We are now considering allowing hf
access to a batch of new amateurs. At the same time, we are talking
about s significant (IMO) reduction in the qualifications for that
access. So unless the General test element meant and means absolutely
*nothing*, we are going to launch a lot of people onto HF with even
less qualifications than we have now.


It's been done. Namely the old Novice on HF. Albeit at lower power, a
novice still had to
contend with TVI and RFI issues. Sometimes he had help from an Elmer.








Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.


If we don't test for safety, I would support a reduced power of 5
watts. QRP level. I've done harm to myself at 50 watts

Except for unusual propagation, 5 watts won't go far. You won't be
heard and you
won't be able to play with the bigger dogs. That could be a serious
turn off to a
beginner. "Nobody will talk to me". Running 100w can still require
patience in
a crowded contest environment.

Robert Casey wrote:


And here is the conundrum IMO. We are now considering allowing hf
access to a batch of new amateurs. At the same time, we are talking
about s significant (IMO) reduction in the qualifications for that
access. So unless the General test element meant and means absolutely
*nothing*, we are going to launch a lot of people onto HF with even
less qualifications than we have now.



It's been done. Namely the old Novice on HF. Albeit at lower power, a
novice still had to
contend with TVI and RFI issues. Sometimes he had help from an Elmer.








Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.



If we don't test for safety, I would support a reduced power of 5
watts. QRP level. I've done harm to myself at 50 watts


Except for unusual propagation, 5 watts won't go far. You won't be
heard and you
won't be able to play with the bigger dogs. That could be a serious
turn off to a
beginner. "Nobody will talk to me". Running 100w can still require
patience in
a crowded contest environment.


Agreed, Robert. My actual position on the RF and high voltage is "test
'em for it, and let 'em play with it". If we don't test 'em for it, then
we shouldn't let them play with *anything* they can hurt themselves with.

Some of the proposals want to limit the beginners power levels,
ostensibly for safety reasons. They rationalize that if we reduce power
levels, or even have bizarre requirements such as a "voltage to the
finals" limit for the newbies, this will even serve to reduce the
questions needed on the test, making it easier to get a license.

I wonder how many prospective hams have ever stated "I was going to
become a Ham, but a 50 question test? I absolutely refuse to take a test
with more than 30 questions!"

oops, I digress.....


Hams should be taught from the get-go about RF and high voltage safety.
We operate with high voltages, and if we homebrew (ohh noo, that is
another thing some proposals want to eliminate for the young'uns) we
will possibly have some serious voltage running around. And the
transistor and IC generations should probably be reminded of that.

I think that elimination or even reduction of the number of test
questions by eliminating the RF safety questions verges on criminal
negligence by the parties involved. there has been a precedent set in
what we have now. I wonder if the ARRL might feel itself at the pointy
end of a lawsuit (remember, they are involved in the makeup of the
tests) if it reduces that requirement. After all, someone at some point
felt it was a good idea to put those questions in.

That is why I believe if we're putting them out to play without
adequate learning, we must limit that power to something that is not
likely at all to hurt them.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

So what should a candidate know to get a beginner, and upper level license?

As we are allowed to modify and homebrew equipment, we should have on
the tests questions on how such equipment works, and how to identify problem
areas like RFI, TVI, harmonic emissions and such.

Agreed. But how much is needed is the tough question. How much is enough?

I think that "enough" is testing that will allow the prospective ham to
get enough knowledge to know where to start to get a station on the air.

OK, fine. Pretty basic stuff like what a MHz is and such.

And here is the conundrum IMO. We are now considering allowing hf
access to a batch of new amateurs. At the same time, we are talking
about s significant (IMO) reduction in the qualifications for that
access. So unless the General test element meant and means absolutely
*nothing*, we are going to launch a lot of people onto HF with even less
qualifications than we have now.

That all depends on what is actually in the tests. The old Novice test
was around for almost a half century and turned many, many hams loose
on HF - me included. With a 20-30 question written test and 5 wpm
Morse, often using homebrew, kit or converted-surplus gear.

And for most of that time, the new ham had to tune the gear up in
order to transmit, and had to figure out things like how to build a
transmit-receive system to go between the separate tx and rx.

We did OK.

Is this doing them a service? That's what I wonder about. I doubt many
people would argue for turning out more Electrical engineers by
drastically reducing the requirements to be one. Yes I know that an
engineer is a professional, but my point stands. How does lowering
requirements improve something?

It only works if the privileges are reduced accordingly. Which is a
key part of the "NewNovice" concept.

Also RF safety issues, as we are allowed kilowatt levels of power.

Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.

If we don't test for safety, I would support a reduced power of 5 watts.
QRP level. I've done arm to myself at 50 watts, and

In the bad old days I was turned loose with high voltages and up to 75
watts. I'm still here and the house didn't burn down.

electrical safety techniques, as much equipment use hazardous voltages
(also we should know not to wear wedding rings and such near car
batteries, a short thru a ring can burn a finger off).

Is the purpose of the safety questions to protect a ham from himself, or to
protect those around him?

The answer is yes.

HAW!

Rules and regs. Like no business traffic. What constitutes malicious
interference and what is just normal life on the HF bands when conditions
are crowded.

Some knowledge of modes and bandwidth, especially why you don't
want to set your rig on 14.349 in USB mode.

Basically, we should know how not to trash the RF spectrum and
screw up other users.

Agreed.

What else should be here?

- Basic knowledge and skills for the basic level, more advanced stuff for the
higher license levels.

- Operating skills and practices

- Morse code tests

Oh-oh! ;^)

I miss Sam Kinison too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...





What else should be here?



- Basic knowledge and skills for the basic level, more advanced stuff for
the
higher license levels.

- Operating skills and practices

This would be an extension of distingushing between malacious
interefernce and
the "facts of life" on HF ham bands (that nobody has exclusive rights to
a specific
frequency and that both parties involved in QRM move away (up or down) in
frequency to clear each other. And that some bands have unexpected
patterns
of propagation (like 10m has the usual circle of nearby coverage, then a
ring of
no coverage, and another ring of "skip". And thus you can QRM the
reception
of a ham in the skip zone trying to copy someone you can't hear. So you
would
then understand why someone seems to be talking to himself.).

Also some basic knowledge of the "syntax" of a QSO. XX#XXX, this is
WA2ISE.


- Morse code tests

Why this today? Back in the vacuum tube era, morse code (CW)
transmitters and
receivers were simple but required human encode and decode. Today we have
digital technology and such for automated encode and decode of modes
more robust
than old fashined CW. Morse can be a fun mode for those interested,
but should
it be required?


Each and every mode will have conditions under which it will out perform
others. When there is a high static level and phase shifts induced by
severe auroras, voice fails and so do all computer aided digital modes
currently in existence. This was proven last fall with the large number of
major solar flares we had last fall. Code with human encode/decode held up
longer than any other mode under that set of conditions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

N2EY wrote:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:



So what should a candidate know to get a beginner, and upper level license?

As we are allowed to modify and homebrew equipment, we should have on
the tests questions on how such equipment works, and how to identify problem
areas like RFI, TVI, harmonic emissions and such.



Agreed. But how much is needed is the tough question. How much is enough?

I think that "enough" is testing that will allow the prospective ham to
get enough knowledge to know where to start to get a station on the air.


OK, fine. Pretty basic stuff like what a MHz is and such.


And here is the conundrum IMO. We are now considering allowing hf
access to a batch of new amateurs. At the same time, we are talking
about s significant (IMO) reduction in the qualifications for that
access. So unless the General test element meant and means absolutely
*nothing*, we are going to launch a lot of people onto HF with even less
qualifications than we have now.


That all depends on what is actually in the tests. The old Novice test
was around for almost a half century and turned many, many hams loose
on HF - me included. With a 20-30 question written test and 5 wpm
Morse, often using homebrew, kit or converted-surplus gear.

And for most of that time, the new ham had to tune the gear up in
order to transmit, and had to figure out things like how to build a
transmit-receive system to go between the separate tx and rx.

We did OK.

Is this doing them a service? That's what I wonder about. I doubt many
people would argue for turning out more Electrical engineers by
drastically reducing the requirements to be one. Yes I know that an
engineer is a professional, but my point stands. How does lowering
requirements improve something?


It only works if the privileges are reduced accordingly. Which is a
key part of the "NewNovice" concept.

Also RF safety issues, as we are allowed kilowatt levels of power.



Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.

If we don't test for safety, I would support a reduced power of 5 watts.
QRP level. I've done arm to myself at 50 watts, and


In the bad old days I was turned loose with high voltages and up to 75
watts. I'm still here and the house didn't burn down.


electrical safety techniques, as much equipment use hazardous voltages
(also we should know not to wear wedding rings and such near car
batteries, a short thru a ring can burn a finger off).



Is the purpose of the safety questions to protect a ham from himself, or to
protect those around him?

The answer is yes.


HAW!

Rules and regs. Like no business traffic. What constitutes malicious
interference and what is just normal life on the HF bands when conditions
are crowded.

Some knowledge of modes and bandwidth, especially why you don't
want to set your rig on 14.349 in USB mode.

Basically, we should know how not to trash the RF spectrum and
screw up other users.


Agreed.

What else should be here?

- Basic knowledge and skills for the basic level, more advanced stuff for the
higher license levels.

- Operating skills and practices

- Morse code tests

Oh-oh! ;^)


I miss Sam Kinison too.

Heh! remember his "why do they live in the desert" sthick from the
first gulf war? Profane, but hilarious.

- Mike KB3EIA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

So what should a candidate know to get a beginner, and upper level
license?

As we are allowed to modify and homebrew equipment, we should have on
the tests questions on how such equipment works, and how to identify
problem areas like RFI, TVI, harmonic emissions and such.

Agreed. But how much is needed is the tough question. How much is
enough?

I think that "enough" is testing that will allow the prospective ham to
get enough knowledge to know where to start to get a station on the air.

OK, fine. Pretty basic stuff like what a MHz is and such.

And here is the conundrum IMO. We are now considering allowing hf
access to a batch of new amateurs. At the same time, we are talking
about s significant (IMO) reduction in the qualifications for that
access. So unless the General test element meant and means absolutely
*nothing*, we are going to launch a lot of people onto HF with even less
qualifications than we have now.

That all depends on what is actually in the tests. The old Novice test
was around for almost a half century and turned many, many hams loose
on HF - me included. With a 20-30 question written test and 5 wpm
Morse, often using homebrew, kit or converted-surplus gear.

And for most of that time, the new ham had to tune the gear up in
order to transmit, and had to figure out things like how to build a
transmit-receive system to go between the separate tx and rx.

We did OK.

Is this doing them a service? That's what I wonder about. I doubt many
people would argue for turning out more Electrical engineers by
drastically reducing the requirements to be one. Yes I know that an
engineer is a professional, but my point stands. How does lowering
requirements improve something?

It only works if the privileges are reduced accordingly. Which is a
key part of the "NewNovice" concept.

Also RF safety issues, as we are allowed kilowatt levels of power.

Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.

If we don't test for safety, I would support a reduced power of 5 watts.
QRP level. I've done arm to myself at 50 watts, and

In the bad old days I was turned loose with high voltages and up to 75
watts. I'm still here and the house didn't burn down.

75 watts input meant about 50 watts output. Only 3 dB down from 100 W. Since
then, the Novice power ilmit was more than doubled - the proposed 100 W limit
is actually *less* than current Novices and Tech Pluses are allowed.

This doesn't mean all the RF safety questions are removed! It means the RF
safety basics are left in.

electrical safety techniques, as much equipment use hazardous voltages
(also we should know not to wear wedding rings and such near car
batteries, a short thru a ring can burn a finger off).

Is the purpose of the safety questions to protect a ham from himself, or
to protect those around him?

The answer is yes.

HAW!

The serious part of all this is that we must avoid absurdities like the NCVEC
"30 volt rule".

Rules and regs. Like no business traffic. What constitutes malicious
interference and what is just normal life on the HF bands when conditions
are crowded.

Some knowledge of modes and bandwidth, especially why you don't
want to set your rig on 14.349 in USB mode.

Basically, we should know how not to trash the RF spectrum and
screw up other users.

Agreed.

What else should be here?

- Basic knowledge and skills for the basic level, more advanced stuff for
the higher license levels.

- Operating skills and practices

- Morse code tests

Oh-oh! ;^)

I miss Sam Kinison too.

Heh! remember his "why do they live in the desert" sthick from the
first gulf war? Profane, but hilarious.

Oh yes. He's with Chris Farley now. Fortunately George Carlin is still with us.


And while we're on the subject - didja see Bob Dylan in the Victoria's Secret
commercial? Surreal, as dear departed N0BK would say.

73 de Jim, N2EY